positive statutory requirement in New York

2006The scope of judicial review of a denial of participation in the temporary work release program is limited to whether respondent’s decision violated a positive statutory requirement or denied a constitutional right, or whether the decision of respondent was affected by “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; Matter of Bruno v Recore, 227 AD2d 709 [3d Dept 1996]; Matter of Walker v LeFevre, 193 AD2d 982 [3d Dept 1993]).

2006The scope of judicial review of a denial of participation in the temporary work release program is limited to whether respondent’s decision violated a positive statutory requirement or denied a constitutional right, or whether the decision of respondent was affected by “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; Matter of Bruno v Recore, 227 AD2d 709 [3d Dept 1996]; Matter of Walker v LeFevre, 193 AD2d 982 [3d Dept 1993]).

1995Grimmick v McGreevy, 141 AD2d 989 ; Matter of Lynch v New York State Div. of Parole, 82 AD2d 1012 ; Executive Law § 259-i [5]).

1995Grimmick v McGreevy, 141 AD2d 989 ; Matter of Lynch v New York State Div. of Parole, 82 AD2d 1012 ; Executive Law § 259-i [5]).

1995The Board of Parole’s consideration of the District Attorney’s negative recommendation concerning the petitioner’s request for parole was not a denial of the petitioner’s due process rights (which do not attach to parole hearings), contrary to law, or a violation of a positive statutory requirement (see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69 ; Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 NY2d 21 ; People ex rel.

1990Such determination will not be disturbed unless it violated a positive statutory requirement, denied a constitutional right, or was "affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Gonzalez v Wilson, supra, at 386-387; Matter of Schwimmer v Dunham, 91 AD2d 100, 104 ).

1983Inasmuch as we are dealing with a privilege rather than a right, the scope of judicial review is limited to determining whether the decision denying the furlough violated a positive statutory requirement, denied a constitutional right or was a determination “affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Hoffman v Wilson, 86 AD2d 735 ).

1980Absent a violation by appellants of a positive statutory requirement, or a denial of any constitutional rights (neither of which we find here), a refusal to transfer a prisoner to the Elderly and Handicapped Unit at Fishkill is not judicially reviewable (see Matter of Rosati v Grenis, 50 AD2d 818 ).

1975Absent a violation by respondent of a positive statutory requirement, or a denial of any constitutional rights, a refusal to release a prisoner on furlough is not judicially reviewable (cf. People v Pierre, 34 AD2d 1000 ).

1970Absent a violation by the Board of Parole of a positive statutory requirement, a refusal to release a prisoner on parole is not judicially reviewable (Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N. Y. 254 ).